Court Judge Slams The Leadership Of Croatia


Judge Ivan Turudic Photo: Darko Jelinek

Judge Ivan Turudic
Photo: Darko Jelinek

On Sunday 10 August 2014 the Croatian newspaper and media portal Vecernji List published a lengthy interview with Judge Ivan Turudic, president of Zagreb County Court, in which Turudic, in response to the interview questions, replied with strong criticisms against the leaders of the government, the country’s presidency, the leader of a Serb party in Croatia…

Among other things Turudic said in his interview that Independent Democratic Serb Party (SDSS) vice-president Milorad Pupovac was ethnically biased and called upon him to explain what he knows about the fate of medical doctor Ivan Sreter, who was taken by Serbs in Pakrac in 1991; that Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic, whom he called a Bolshevik and monarch, “is floating on wastelands of his own ignorance and arrogance” and that no one attacks the judiciary more than the Prime Minister. As for President Ivo Josipovic, Turudic said he should reconsider his decision to keep Sasa Perkovic as his advisor on national security (Sasa Perkovic is the son of Josip Perkovic currently being tried in Germany in relation to murder committed in 1980’s under the former Yugoslavia communist crimes category/directives and it was Croatian leadership Turudic speaks of that strongly fought against the extradition of Josip Perkovic to Germany some months back). Turudic admitted to being in good relations with Tomislav Karamarko, the president of the Croatian Democratic Union (HDZ) and said that HDZ was a party that played a crucial role in the creation of the Croatian state. Furthermore, it could be concluded from the interview that Turudic believes that UDBA (Secret Police of communist Yugoslavia) is still “strongly powerful” in Croatia.

Subsequently, in an interview with Novi List daily, President Josipovic said that it was incompatible with good democratic principles and separation of powers for judges to be politically active and that a judge with political ambitions should leave the judiciary and enter the political arena.

Had he been consistent in his statements, had he protected the principle of separation of powers, I would trust him today,” Turudic said, adding that Josipovic could have reacted when the judiciary was exposed “to horrible attacks from the executive authority.”

If he is objecting to my saying something about (the military operation) Storm, I, unlike him, am a defender and have the right to comment because the day of Croatian veterans is my day and no one can take that right away from me,” Turudic said, adding that he was embittered by Croatian Victory and Homeland Thanksgiving Day having turned into “a holiday of three presidents, rather than of war veterans.”


Leaving aside the utterly improper and deplorable circumstances where a government or politicians (as in Croatia) evidently go on the attack of the judiciary and thereby erode the public’s trust in the judiciary, one thing that is important here is that Turudic has spoken out on issues that are strongly present with similar sentiments among the Croatian public on the daily basis – in media, in citizens action groups, in cafes, in homes… Turudic seems to me in this case no different in his opinions to many other citizens of Croatia who are concerned with the way the country is governed and when it comes to a case where a court judge speaks out on issues important to the nation then it’s to be expected that we will not find a consensus anywhere in the world about whether judges should speak out about matters pressing the nation they themselves are a part of. The crucial thing here would seem to be that if a court judge speaks out he/she does so without compromising the impartiality of the role he/she plays as a court judge. Judges are usually accorded a measure of respect, and weight is given to what they have to say in cases they pass judgment on, upon the faith of an understanding by the community that to be judicial is to be impartial. Judges, as citizens, have a right of free speech, and there may be circumstances in which they have a duty to speak out against what they regard as injustice, regardless of whether that injustice involves the whole nation or an individual citizen. If Turudic has said the things he did in the said newspaper interview from a court bench, during a hearing of a case, then he would be seen as deploying judicial authority in support of a political cause and in that case there would be risks of undermining the foundation upon which such authority rests. He did not say those things in a court of law – he said them dressed in his “civilian” clothes, seemingly on annual leave, during an interview for a newspaper. Had Turudic stood on a “soapbox” in a public park and gave an unsolicited speech in which he said similar things then I might have something else to say about it, and that something else would be critical of such behaviour.

On 4 July 1988, the Basic Principles on Independence of the Judiciary were adopted by the 7th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders and include:
Freedom of Expression and Association
8. In accordance with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, members of the judiciary are like other citizens, entitled to freedom of expression, belief, association and assembly, provided, however, that in exercising such rights, judges shall always conduct themselves in such a manner as to preserve the dignity of their office and the impartiality and independence of the judiciary”.

The Croatian law regarding the judiciary, the courts, contains these very elements but it also stipulates that judges cannot be members of political parties “nor engage in political activities”. Such codes of conduct of judges are similar in all democracies. From reading up on various reactions in Croatia to the said Judge Turudic interview (those for and those against) one gets the feeling that, for whatever reason (but obviously political point scoring in some cases) many of those reacting to it seem to confuse, perhaps intentionally, the difference between “political activity” and “opinion about political activity of politicians”, which was what Turudic seems to have been doing. As a private citizen with rights to opinions, Turudic, as anyone else, should enjoy the right of expressing his personal opinions without those being attributed to his role as an officer of the judiciary.

It’s a shame that Croatia has a president who classifies a citizen’s opinion about politician’s activities as political activity in itself!

And indeed, it’s difficult to see that Turudic has by way of his answers to a journalist’s questions placed at risk the dignity of his office as a judge and Croatian judiciary just as, for example, the UK’s top judge Lord David Neuberger, the Supreme Court President, did not when in March of 2013 he attacked UK Government on legal aid cuts, secret courts and human rights threats

Judging by what president Ivo Josipovic has said on the matter of Turudic’s interview it’s difficult not to conclude that it is the president himself who has placed the label of “political activity” upon an expression of opinion about political activity of those in power and government close to his own political leanings (left). This constitutes an unfair attack and it has all the hallmarks of communist ways whereby attacking the critics one diverts the attention from the real issues, from real concerns.  The Croatian public is yet to hear whether the Supreme Court President, Branko Hrvatin (currently on annual leave), will find it necessary to comment on Turudic’s interview and if sanctions against Turudic as an officer of the judiciary will follow. This, I see, will be a telling test as to how far Croatian democracy has moved forward in separating professional and private roles of its citizens in order to allow democracy to flourish. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

Croatia: Antifascist citizens show their ugly face at rally in Zagreb

Police form human shield in Zagreb - Photo:Petar Glebov/Pixell

On Friday 13 April, in the evening, several hundred visibly rowdy followers of Citizens action United Against Fascism came to Zagreb’s Ban Jelacic Square – ready to pounce upon the right-wing Croatian Civilisation /Culture Movement (HUP) gathering.

But the HUP gathering attracted barely twenty people.

The police presence was strong and they formed a human shield, determined on preventing the antifascist horde from advancing towards the HUP group.

The representatives from European ultra-right political parties and organisations, who had come to Zagreb for the banned conference and rally organised by the Croatian Pure Party of Rights stayed away from the Square. Smart move. Judging by the antifascist group’s readiness to pounce the ultra-right nationalists from European countries were expected to show up, even as by-standers.

Jutarnji List reports that one member of the ultra-right group was arrested for raising his right arm and two members of the antifascist group were also arrested, one for refusing to provide his ID.

Scuffles, spirited pushing and shoving occurred and one photo-reporter was injured, pushed to the ground.

This is not about the confrontation between two opposing sub-cultures, although the truth lies somewhere in the middle, this is about confrontation between civilisation and barbarism, ordinary people and fascist fiends (evil-doers),” said in the written invitation to rally distributed by the antifascist Citizens action group.

In analysis, there’s no doubt that if the ultra-right International nationalists conference and rally were not banned, there would have been serious violence in Zagreb on Friday.

Antifascists came ready to fight anyone or anything leaning toward the right; they distributed leaflets with hateful language; they call themselves “ordinary citizens”  and everyone else “evil-doers”, and also wrote on their leaflets that they do not want “fascist orgies in the city”.

They found no violent or aggressive gathering there, so they went on to try and create them.

The right-wing HUP group, on the other hand, said prior to announcing its rally that all Croatian presidents were “Orthodox Communists” and all Prime Ministers “Communists, members of (the Yugoslav secret service) UDBA, freemasons and gay lovers.”

There doesn’t seem anything ordinary about those in the antifascist Citizens group as far as I can see. They resurrect a part of Croatia’s of World War II history, give it life in their leaflets and label today’s right-wingers, I would say the other ordinary citizens, as evil-doers. The antifascists were more vicious than the nationalist group who label former Communists as members of Yugoslav Secret Police UDBA or freemasons …

And the antifascists’ determination to pounce on the nationalists right-wingers will according to portal continue on Saturday 14 April from 11 am in Zagreb’s central Square.

In my previous post on the rally issue I said that perhaps the former communists want the ugly nationalistic scenes to occur in Croatia, to feed their rhetoric of antifascist righteousness. And that is exactly what occurred. However, there is no righteousness in this antifascist movement, it just is plain ugly and cruel – as always.

It seems they like to call themselves anti-fascists and if there are no fascists around to act against, they just concoct them (out of the right-wing political orientation) and pin upon them a resurrection of dark memories of those who died a long time ago.

Truly, something needs to be done in Croatia to ban and outlaw the use of the word “antifascist”.

Violence and aggression should not be tolerated from any side of politics, and yet the antifascist group from Zagreb yesterday behaved as though they had a victory with their rally. If threatening and aggressive behaviours towards those who want to “express their political opinion” as HUP did, are victory, then one cannot hold too much hope that democracy and tolerance will thrive on those streets in their full glory any time soon. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps.(Syd)

Disclaimer, Terms and Conditions:

All content on “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is for informational purposes only. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is not responsible for and expressly disclaims all liability for the interpretations and subsequent reactions of visitors or commenters either to this site or its associate Twitter account, @IVukic or its Facebook account. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers and the writer will take full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The nature of information provided on this website may be transitional and, therefore, accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, exactitude, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed. This blog may contain hypertext links to other websites or webpages. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information on any other website or webpage. We do not endorse or accept any responsibility for any views expressed or products or services offered on outside sites, or the organisations sponsoring those sites, or the safety of linking to those sites. Comment Policy: Everyone is welcome and encouraged to voice their opinion regardless of identity, politics, ideology, religion or agreement with the subject in posts or other commentators. Personal or other criticism is acceptable as long as it is justified by facts, arguments or discussions of key issues. Comments that include profanity, offensive language and insults will be moderated.
%d bloggers like this: